Perhaps Ryan’s cuts in poverty programs are unjust. But maybe, just maybe, they’re needed to eliminate waste. These programs just don’t seem to be doing much good as they exist today. I don’t see that demonizing Ryan is an appropriate response from the USCCB.

]]>By: crosseyed maryhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-1/#comment-74669
crosseyed maryThu, 26 Apr 2012 02:38:57 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74669Sounds you are like those nuns who “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” And if people are better off when they have work, as if that isn’t obvious, why complain about government support of the US auto industry because without that support, more people would be unemployed? Y’think maybe companies taking jobs overseas where workers (and children) get miniscule wages has something to do with the loss of jobs in the US? But then you probably are filled with animus against unions, too. What would the blessed John Paul II have thought about that?
]]>By: Maryhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-1/#comment-74613
MaryWed, 25 Apr 2012 15:24:04 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74613Incorrect. I greatly respect their guidance as to our responsibilities as Catholics. I do not believe that they have been told directly by God how much that help should cost, or whether the Federal government should be providing all of it. And again, the fact that the government is spending way more than they are taking in is creating an entirely new group of poor, if you know anyone under thirty who is trying to start their adult lives, as we had the opportunity to. The government’s policies have led to a collapse of the job market. And things are worse than they look. Those numbers of people visible on the unemployment rolls do not include people who have dropped out of the job market, and many of the self employed who are in eligible for unemployment benefits. Again, more new poor people. I have been responsible for the hiring and pay of employees so I can say with certainty that things are not better for them with food stamps and unemployment benefits. Things are better for people when they have work. The government must stop sucking all of the life and money out of business, and get back to the key principles of its purpose.
]]>By: Papabilehttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-2/#comment-74604
PapabileWed, 25 Apr 2012 07:02:54 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74604I am not defending Thiessan here.

But let me tell you how this was perceived on Capitol Hill, a place I have worked at for years.

1. The Republicans remember the exchange of letters between Paul Ryan and Cardinal Dolan (President of the USCCB in 2011). These were important enough that they were put on the Budget Committee’s web site. See:

2. The budget presented by Ryan in 2012 for FY2013 fundamentally resembles the same budget presented in 2011 for FY2012. It does most of the same things.

3. The journey from Dolan’s letter of a year ago to today’s letter from the USCCB which calls the current proposed budget “immoral” is simply seen as partisanship.

4. I am not saying this is right. It is simply a fact when I say it is viewed that way.

5. Most Republicans simply believe the bureaucrats at the USCCB drafted it, obtained approval and then sliced and diced the signature.

6. This too is simply viewed as a fact on the Hill.

7. You can forget about really trying to do anything legislatively on conscience.

8. The Republicans have felt they have been hung out to dry.

9. The Democrats are more than happy about this. A cudgel has been given to them to beat up the Republicans.

10. The Democrats will now use this to say Paul Ryan is a dissenting Catholic and make comparisons to Pelosi et al.

I am NOT suggesting that anyone agree with the Republicans on the Budget matters. This was simply meant to say how this is viewed from the Republican side of the aisle in the House.

]]>By: Crosseyed Maryhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-1/#comment-74584
Crosseyed MaryTue, 24 Apr 2012 22:44:53 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74584Fighting against the Bishops? Somebody here is a cafeteria Catholyc. Sounds like Jesus as Wall Street’s Gordon Gecko. So much for the preferential option for the poor.
]]>By: Joe Mhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-1/#comment-74582
Joe MTue, 24 Apr 2012 22:29:23 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74582I agree. I see Mark’s point. I think that Thiessen does go too far. However, if this is a matter of prudential judgment as the Church teaches, it seems like the Bishops should at least frame it that way.
]]>By: Chrishttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-2/#comment-74579
ChrisTue, 24 Apr 2012 22:13:27 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74579I think Thiessen’s last paragraph sums it up nicely:

“The preferential option for the poor,” Ryan says, should not mean “a preferential option for big government.” After the recent federal assault on religious liberty, the bishops should appreciate the destructive power of big government. They should also appreciate the fact that the chairman of the committee crafting the Republican Party’s budget is a man of faith who is working to address the problems of poverty and our nation’s debt, so we can ensure we are not living, in Pope Benedict’s words, in “untruth” and “at the expense of future generations.”

]]>By: Ben Andersonhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-2/#comment-74569
Ben AndersonTue, 24 Apr 2012 19:45:36 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74569I’d agree with the other commenters who say that your claims, Mark, don’t match the data. I don’t see anywhere in the snippet you shared the claim that the bishop is an “ill-informed political pawn”. Thiessen is saying that the bishop is using the President’s (and Democratic Parties) loaded language.
]]>By: Scotthttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-2/#comment-74568
ScottTue, 24 Apr 2012 19:04:53 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74568Anyone who has been in Bishop Blaire’s diocese for any length of time (as I have) will not find this to be a surprise at all. I think the PC term is “progressive”. I can only hope that somewhere there is a good side to him that means well…but remember, he as we, are not infallible.
]]>By: Estherhttp://www.catholicvote.org/scapegoating-a-bishop/comment-page-1/#comment-74567
EstherTue, 24 Apr 2012 18:39:35 +0000http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29437#comment-74567ANYONE IS BETTER THAN OBOMA AGAIN—–IF YOU DON’T VOTE, THEN YOU ARE VOTING FOR OBOMA
]]>